JAN/FEB 2022
SUPPLEMENTARY PORTFOLIO EXAM
IRM1501
Introduction to research for law and criminal justice
Written by
Camecia Cass
BUY ME TO VIEW THE REST OF THE
ANSWER
, Question 1
Langa v Premier, Limpopo and Others [2021] ZACC 38
The facts of the case
The appeal of Langa v Premier, Limpopo and Others [2021] ZACC 38 (hereinafter referred to as
Langa v Premier) relates to a leadership dispute between the applicant and fifth respondent
against each other as rival claimants to the position of senior traditional leader of the Mapela
Traditional Community.1 This dispute was referred to the Ralushai and Kgatla Commissions,
which both recommended the recognition of the fifth respondent as senior traditional leader. 2
The applicant however has denied the correctness of these recommendations. 3 The applicant Mr
Kgabagare David Langa therefore, in this matter seeks leave to appeal against the order and
judgment of the High Court of South Africa, Limpopo Division, Polokwane (High Court), in which
the High Court dismissed an application to review and set aside the Premier of the Limpopo
Province’s decision to remove the applicant as the senior traditional leader of the Mapela
Traditional Community and recognise the fifth respondent as senior traditional leader in his
stead.4
The second respondent, is a Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Co-
operative Governance, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs in Limpopo Province
(Department). The third respondent, is the Ralushai Commission of Inquiry, and the fourth
respondent, the Kgatla Commission of Inquiry, delegated to deal with disputes and claims of
chieftainship in the Limpopo Province. The fifth respondent, Mr Hans Masebe Langa, was
recognised by the Premier as the senior traditional leader of the Mapela Traditional Community
in 2017 upon the removal of the applicant as senior traditional leader. 5 The first, second, third
and fourth respondents filed an answering affidavit in the High Court but have not filed papers
in this Court.
The legal questions
1. The main question before the Constitutional Court was whether the High Court erred
when it dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the Premier’s decision to recognise the
fifth respondent as senior traditional leader of the Mapela Traditional Community,
which gave effect to by the recognition notice6, and the decision to remove the applicant
from the position, which in turn gave effect to by the withdrawal notice. 7
2. Secondly if a Premier is not empowered by section 13(3) of the Limpopo Traditional
Leadership and Institutions Act 6 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Limpopo Act)
1
Langa case para 17.
2
Langa case para 17.
3
Langa case para 17.
4
Langa case para 1.
5
Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003 (Framework Act) and the Limpopo
Traditional Leadership and Institutions Act 6 of 2005 (Limpopo Act).
6
Section 12(1)(b)(i) of the [Limpopo Act].
7
Section 13(3)(b) of the [Limpopo Act].
SUPPLEMENTARY PORTFOLIO EXAM
IRM1501
Introduction to research for law and criminal justice
Written by
Camecia Cass
BUY ME TO VIEW THE REST OF THE
ANSWER
, Question 1
Langa v Premier, Limpopo and Others [2021] ZACC 38
The facts of the case
The appeal of Langa v Premier, Limpopo and Others [2021] ZACC 38 (hereinafter referred to as
Langa v Premier) relates to a leadership dispute between the applicant and fifth respondent
against each other as rival claimants to the position of senior traditional leader of the Mapela
Traditional Community.1 This dispute was referred to the Ralushai and Kgatla Commissions,
which both recommended the recognition of the fifth respondent as senior traditional leader. 2
The applicant however has denied the correctness of these recommendations. 3 The applicant Mr
Kgabagare David Langa therefore, in this matter seeks leave to appeal against the order and
judgment of the High Court of South Africa, Limpopo Division, Polokwane (High Court), in which
the High Court dismissed an application to review and set aside the Premier of the Limpopo
Province’s decision to remove the applicant as the senior traditional leader of the Mapela
Traditional Community and recognise the fifth respondent as senior traditional leader in his
stead.4
The second respondent, is a Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Co-
operative Governance, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs in Limpopo Province
(Department). The third respondent, is the Ralushai Commission of Inquiry, and the fourth
respondent, the Kgatla Commission of Inquiry, delegated to deal with disputes and claims of
chieftainship in the Limpopo Province. The fifth respondent, Mr Hans Masebe Langa, was
recognised by the Premier as the senior traditional leader of the Mapela Traditional Community
in 2017 upon the removal of the applicant as senior traditional leader. 5 The first, second, third
and fourth respondents filed an answering affidavit in the High Court but have not filed papers
in this Court.
The legal questions
1. The main question before the Constitutional Court was whether the High Court erred
when it dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the Premier’s decision to recognise the
fifth respondent as senior traditional leader of the Mapela Traditional Community,
which gave effect to by the recognition notice6, and the decision to remove the applicant
from the position, which in turn gave effect to by the withdrawal notice. 7
2. Secondly if a Premier is not empowered by section 13(3) of the Limpopo Traditional
Leadership and Institutions Act 6 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Limpopo Act)
1
Langa case para 17.
2
Langa case para 17.
3
Langa case para 17.
4
Langa case para 1.
5
Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003 (Framework Act) and the Limpopo
Traditional Leadership and Institutions Act 6 of 2005 (Limpopo Act).
6
Section 12(1)(b)(i) of the [Limpopo Act].
7
Section 13(3)(b) of the [Limpopo Act].
